Cohen's third client is revealed:

[Subduction Zone]

Ditto on that.

I really don't hate anyone but I do sometimes hate what some people may say or do. When someone calls those of us who may have problems with Trump on a few or many of his actions a "Trump hater", it's the same kind of stereotypical slam some use towards those who want stricter gun control as being "anti-2nd Amendment".

Time will tell whether anyone was guilty of collusion or obstruction in all likelihood, but even if Trump is innocent, that still does not excuse so many of his other illegal, and sometimes utterly depraved, actions, many of which go back decades.

So, with me, it's more the "hate the sin, not the sinner" approach.

Right, a desire for justice does not make someone a Trump hater. This is a Trump hater:

 

[metis]

Right, a desire for justice does not make someone a Trump hater. This is a Trump hater:

In spades.

 

[Wirey]

The real question is who did Hannity screw and get Cohen to intimidate into an NDA? Roseanne?

 

[Phantasman]

Ditto on that.

I really don't hate anyone but I do sometimes hate what some people may say or do. When someone calls those of us who may have problems with Trump on a few or many of his actions a "Trump hater", it's the same kind of stereotypical slam some use towards those who want stricter gun control as being "anti-2nd Amendment".

Time will tell whether anyone was guilty of collusion or obstruction in all likelihood, but even if Trump is innocent, that still does not excuse so many of his other illegal, and sometimes utterly depraved, actions, many of which go back decades.

So, with me, it's more the "hate the sin, not the sinner" approach.

I agree. But you can tell the Trump haters when you listen. Comey just came out with a new book. In the book he says how Trump has small hands, looks like his eyes are white like he uses goggles in a tanning bed, and his hair takes a lot of tending to, etc. etc.

It's clear he hates Trump. I don't believe anything he says because it's through his hatred of the man that he speaks.

Holding up a severed head of Trump does the same thing for me. So does "lock her up". So does "Impeach 45".

Mob mentality is dangerous to truth. I don't follow "din".

 

[metis]

Comey just came out with a new book. In the book he says how Trump has small hands, looks like his eyes are white like he uses goggles in a tanning bed, and his hair takes a lot of tending to, etc. etc.

And Trump doesn't do such things?

It's clear he hates Trump. I don't believe anything he says because it's through his hatred of the man that he speaks.

And Trump doesn't spout hatred?

Hate speech by anyone is immoral, imo, but this same kind of hate-speech helped get Trump elected by people who are not bothered by hate-speech as long as it was their candidate that did it.

And Trump does this almost every day of the week without exaggeration, but his base simply ignores or excuses it. When Hillary did it ("basket of deplorables"), I was appalled and angry even though my intention was to not vote for her but vote 3rd party (at the last minute I voted for her in order to try and stop Trump from getting elected-- obviously, that didn't work out).

 

[Falvlun]

Just to clarify what happened here:

The raid on Cohen was not done by Mueller. Mueller’s Investigation had revealed possible criminal activity, and he referred the matter to federal prosecutors in New York. The DOJ has confirmed that Cohen has been under criminal investigation for months. The raid was performed by the FBI, executed by the US Attorney’s office in New York. The US attorney was assigned by Sessions in January, and the warrants were authorized by a federal judge.

Trump’s attorneys then filed a letter with the court that Trump should be allowed to review all material seized for attorney-client privilege.

Normal procedure is a “taint team”— lawyers not affiliated with the case— review the material for attorney-client privilege so that any material covered is never seen by those involved in the case. Trump’s request is unprecedented and illogical— it would essentially allow those under investigation to determine what material they think should be admissible. Obviously, that can’t work.

Note that attorney-client privilege doesn’t cover any old conversation that happens with an attorney. If they are not acting in the capacity of attorney, generally it does not apply. And if the conversation is about fascilitating a crime, then it also does not apply— eg Telling an attorney you robbed a bank is privileged. Discussing plans to rob a bank is not.

Because of this letter and similar arguments by Cohen’s attorneys (they want a “special master” to review the documents instead of the usual “taint team”), a judge held a hearing about it. This hearing required that Cohen’s attorneys actually reveal who his clients are. They named Trump and Broidy but refused to name the third because he was a “prominent person” who wanted to keep his identity secret. The judge overruled this, and was going to accept the name privately, but an attorney for the press successfully argued that it should be public. The third ended up being Hannity.

Hannity claims that he never retained Cohen, or paid him for legal fees, but that they had informal chats about real estate. If so, then Cohen and his attorneys must be pretty confused. Also, these chats wouldn’t be covered by attorney-client privilege.

It also leaves Hannity’s integrity on the line since he’s been strongly defending Cohen and arguing against his investigation, without providing a disclaimer that he personally knows him and has sought his legal advice, which would be standard journalistic practice.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Hannity claims that he never retained Cohen, or paid him for legal fees, but that they had informal chats about real estate. If so, then Cohen and his attorneys must be pretty confused. Also, these chats wouldn’t be covered by attorney-client privilege.

It doesn't even make sense for Cohen to list Hannity as a client if Cohen doesn't have any documents or tapes with Hannity on them that would have been collected in the FBI raid. The Cohen team seems to be listing Hannity as a client to shield Hannity with attorney-client privilege with respect to the documents the FBI collected.

 

[Falvlun]

It doesn't even make sense for Cohen to list Hannity as a client if Cohen doesn't have any documents or tapes with Hannity on them that would have been collected in the FBI raid. The Cohen team seems to be listing Hannity as a client to shield Hannity with attorney-client privilege with respect to the documents the FBI collected.

Yeah that’s my take— Cohen’s team was trying to make sure Hannity had attorney client privilege but then Hannity blew that up.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just to clarify what happened here:

The raid on Cohen was not done by Mueller. Mueller’s Investigation had revealed possible criminal activity, and he referred the matter to federal prosecutors in New York. The DOJ has confirmed that Cohen has been under criminal investigation for months. The raid was performed by the FBI, executed by the US Attorney’s office in New York. The US attorney was assigned by Sessions in January, and the warrants were authorized by a federal judge.

Trump’s attorneys then filed a letter with the court that Trump should be allowed to review all material seized for attorney-client privilege.

Normal procedure is a “taint team”— lawyers not affiliated with the case— review the material for attorney-client privilege so that any material covered is never seen by those involved in the case. Trump’s request is unprecedented and illogical— it would essentially allow those under investigation to determine what material they think should be admissible. Obviously, that can’t work.

Note that attorney-client privilege doesn’t cover any old conversation that happens with an attorney. If they are not acting in the capacity of attorney, generally it does not apply. And if the conversation is about fascilitating a crime, then it also does not apply— eg Telling an attorney you robbed a bank is privileged. Discussing plans to rob a bank is not.

Because of this letter and similar arguments by Cohen’s attorneys (they want a “special master” to review the documents instead of the usual “taint team”), a judge held a hearing about it. This hearing required that Cohen’s attorneys actually reveal who his clients are. They named Trump and Broidy but refused to name the third because he was a “prominent person” who wanted to keep his identity secret. The judge overruled this, and was going to accept the name privately, but an attorney for the press successfully argued that it should be public. The third ended up being Hannity.

Hannity claims that he never retained Cohen, or paid him for legal fees, but that they had informal chats about real estate. If so, then Cohen and his attorneys must be pretty confused. Also, these chats wouldn’t be covered by attorney-client privilege.

It also leaves Hannity’s integrity on the line since he’s been strongly defending Cohen and arguing against his investigation, without providing a disclaimer that he personally knows him and has sought his legal advice, which would be standard journalistic practice.

It could easily be a loss for both Hannity and Cohen. Cohen's lawyer testified that the third party would possible begin a lawsuit to keep his name private. The name was revealed anyway and then Hannity promptly through Cohen's lawyer under the bus by denying such claims.

And you are right that Hanity's high moral integrity . . . why are all of those people laughing the background?

 

[Revoltingest]

And Trump doesn't do such things?


And Trump doesn't spout hatred?

Hate speech by anyone is immoral, imo, but this same kind of hate-speech helped get Trump elected by people who are not bothered by hate-speech as long as it was their candidate that did it.

And Trump does this almost every day of the week without exaggeration, but his base simply ignores or excuses it. When Hillary did it ("basket of deplorables"), I was appalled and angry even though my intention was to not vote for her but vote 3rd party (at the last minute I voted for her in order to try and stop Trump from getting elected-- obviously, that didn't work out).

If you'd read his whole post (not just the portion you you
quoted), you'd see that he criticized the call to "Locker her up".
This looks like criticism of Trump to me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I agree. But you can tell the Trump haters when you listen. Comey just came out with a new book. In the book he says how Trump has small hands, looks like his eyes are white like he uses goggles in a tanning bed, and his hair takes a lot of tending to, etc. etc.

It's clear he hates Trump. I don't believe anything he says because it's through his hatred of the man that he speaks.

Holding up a severed head of Trump does the same thing for me. So does "lock her up". So does "Impeach 45".

Mob mentality is dangerous to truth. I don't follow "din".

Hate might be too strong of a word. And I could not find the "small hands" claim. Instead I read this in regards to Trump's small hands by Comey:

"“As he extended his hand, I made a mental note to check its size. It was smaller than mine, but did not seem unusually so,” Comey writes, according to CNN.com."

‘Orange’-Faced Mafia Don with 'Smaller' Hands: Comey Book Paints Colorful Portrait of Trump

He specifically stated that his hands were not unusually small, that they were only smaller than his. That was in no way a slur, it appeared to be an attempt to defuse a slur.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you'd read his whole post (not just the portion you you
quoted), you'd see that he criticized the call to "Locker her up".
This looks like criticism of Trump to me.

Actually it was a criticism of extremism from any side. Trump's extremism would be included with that of Kathy Griffin and those advocating for the impeachment of Obama.

 

[Revoltingest]

Actually it was a criticism of extremism from any side. Trump's extremism would be included with that of Kathy Griffin and those advocating for the impeachment of Obama.

Aye, that's how I read it too.

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

Was Mueller supposed to just ignore a violation of campaign finance law? Really?



That's projection.

It gets ignored all the time, unless one is out to get the other guy. I am not aware of any other Special Counsel bothering to inform the FBI about things like that. And of course, the raids have nothing whatsoever to do with hush money to women that would embarrass Trump, right?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It gets ignored all the time, unless one is out to get the other guy. I am not aware of any other Special Counsel bothering to inform the FBI about things like that. And of course, the raids have nothing whatsoever to do with hush money to women that would embarrass Trump, right?

I see that you are forgetting John Edwards.

 

[fantome profane]

It gets ignored all the time, unless one is out to get the other guy. I am not aware of any other Special Counsel bothering to inform the FBI about things like that. And of course, the raids have nothing whatsoever to do with hush money to women that would embarrass Trump, right?

What is the alternative? Should they not prosecute a crime if it has the potential to embarrass the President?

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

Actually there have been relatively few leaks and most of them didn't come from the Mueller camp but came from those who have been interrogated and/or people that know them.

The venue was sent to lower NY because it involved the Stormy affair, which is not what Mueller's investigation is about. Also, by doing as such, it puts this item at least out of reach for Trump to fire someone.

At this point, we simply do not know what Mueller may have or may not have found dealing with Trump's and Putin's bromance. Speaking of which, did you notice that Trump decided not to go with more Russian sanctions even though the day before Haley said there would be more?

Overstated, imo, but not by much. What I've been doing more lately because of this is to rely somewhat more on foreign sources, such as BBC and Reuters.

The claim is that the hush money paid to Stormy Daniels was really a campaign contribution of an illegally large size. It is extraordinarily unlikely that this would ever result in a conviction. Cohen admitted paying this money. So why did the FBI confiscate all his files? To show that he did pay it? Or to see what else they could dig up on this guy in the White House who was bad mouthing them? Why did Mueller prompt the FBI to do this? It sure sounds like it was intended as an attack on Trump.

The hearing this coming Monday will be about what of the seized material is subject to attorney-client privilege. The fact that it is in NY does not matter all that much. Trump could not possibly fire a US District Court judge no matter where the venue was.

It is not that Trump has decided to not go with more sanctions but that the decision was deferred. It might still happen. Unfortunately, UN Ambassador Haley did not get clued in on the change of plans. Duh!

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

I see that you are forgetting John Edwards.

John Edwards was accused of using campaign funds donated by other people for campaign purposes to cover up an affair. Cohen paid Stormy out of his own pocket, not out of existing campaign funds.. The claim is that this constituted an illegally large campaign contribution because it was intended to protect Trump. Major difference.

 

[Subduction Zone]

John Edwards was accused of using campaign funds donated by other people for campaign purposes to cover up an affair. Cohen paid Stormy out of his own pocket, not out of existing campaign funds.. The claim is that this constituted an illegally large campaign contribution because it was intended to protect Trump. Major difference.

Not really. And that is not quite what happened. Unfortunately I can't link until I get home. It was an illegal campaign fund "in kind". The same thing as the Stormy pay off.

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

What is the alternative? Should they not prosecute a crime if it has the potential to embarrass the President?

Saying that hush money a lawyer paid out of his own pocket is a campaign contribution is stretching things a bit. It does not sound like a conviction would ever come out of it. If Mueller thought it would he would recommend prosecution in his role as Special Counsel.On the other hand, giving the FBI a reason to raid that person's legal files could turn up things to keep the anti-Trump media happy for a long time,. Having a porn star who says she had an affair with Trump at the center of it all is a good start. Not that Trump is any kind of angel. I am no fan of his by a long shot. But I am not blind to what is happening..

I can remember when it was an open secret that JFK was nailing anything with a skirt that held still, including the occasional prostitute sneaked into the White House by the Secret Service. Anything in the media about it? Not until years after his death and then relegated to short pieces or articles on page 19.. Most of the media loved JFK. Most of the media hates Trump. That is the difference.